Bijan Parsia: OWL Lite was intended to be similar to EL++, DL Lite, or OWL-R but there were several problems with its design, most notably that it was not significantly easier to implement nor more robustly scalable than OWL DL. Thus, there wasn't a huge performance (or tool) benefit to staying inside OWL Lite. OWL Lite also could express things that were in OWL DL but in very indirect ways that were very surprising. For example, while the "complementOf" construct was not part of

Bijan Parsia: OWL Lite is a subset of OWL DL 2 and OWL Full 2 but is no longer a recommended profile.

Bijan Parsia: I thought I sent this email, I already have some text about the old species in the primer. I just put a pointer to it

Alan Ruttenberg: thought was that the particular wording that jeremy had was quite nice

Alan Ruttenberg: if you think you have covered it, communicate this to jeremy

Alan Ruttenberg: I'll put an editorial note to put in the text that he had, so you can see whether you feel that adequately covers it

Zakim: sandro, you wanted to ask how much effort / delay OWL-WG would be willing to tollerate on unifying Presentation Syntaxes?

Ian Horrocks: I'm not sure if I can promise to remove Jeremy's irritation ;-)

Jeremy Carroll: "We request one change concerning description of OWL2 and have two other comments RDF entailment & presentation syntax"

Sandro Hawke: one other comment, if you can say where it's actually harmful that would be good. If you want to have them change it, you should be clear on how much you would want this WG (owl) to slow down

Bijan Parsia: But then that's a jeremy comment and not an OWLWG comment

Jeremy Carroll: it's not about RIF and OWL but about the specs that are already out there!

Evan Wallace: Do we care about Jeremy's item 17 (text about OWL 2 and punning)?

Alan Ruttenberg: How about a strawpoll, action a couple of people simply to write up some documentation in a neutral tone about what we saw and what we thought

Alan Ruttenberg: trick that I proposed does not actually work, as GRDDL does require an XSLT

Bijan Parsia: As noted above, each GRDDL transformation specifies a transformation property, a function from XPath document nodes to RDF graphs. This function need not be total; it may have a domain smaller than all XML document nodes. For example, use of xsl:message with terminate="yes" may be used to signal that the input is outside the domain of the transformation.

Bijan Parsia: Developers of transformations should make available representations in widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] is the format most widely supported by GRDDL-aware agents as of this writing, though though XSLT2[XSLT2] deployment is increasing. While technically Javascript, C, or virtually any other programming language may be used to express transformations for GRDDL, XSLT is specifically designed to express XML to XML transformations and has some good safety c

Bijan Parsia: If I look at the GRDLL document it does not specify that you have to have an XSLT, it just mentions that you should have a transformation

Bijan Parsia: I would just like to have some textual support for your claim

Ivan Herman: bijan is right in terms of the recommendation. In fact, the GRDDL spec does not require the XSLT. However, as far as I know, no GRDDL implementation at the moment can handle anything else but XSLT...

Alan Ruttenberg: one of the objections to doing this was that we would have two normative rdf mappings. What we thought we could do is to assign an action to someone who would be happy to create an XSLT, and only publish it as a note of the wg

Alan Ruttenberg: would avoid any confusion about the status, and be friendly to anyone who would like to use that technology

Bijan Parsia: bad idea that the WG does implementation (especially as there are competing implementations such as the OWL API)

Peter Patel-Schneider: there is a competing specification of the transformation ... the one we're writing

Jeremy Carroll: I wanted to take issue with bijan on the web retrievable issue. If you do object to this, you should have made an objection to the GRDDL spec. As it's actually a recommendation, there is a reason to take note of this

Boris Motik: if you want to import the latest version, you just point to the ontology uri.

Jeremy Carroll: this is very simple to spec, excellent, strong support

Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask if you can have a updated-version version-URI (latest in the 4.x series, latest in the 5.x series) ?

Alan Ruttenberg: it is still my intention to write a note offering this more complicated thing that shows that the simple mechanism doesn't handle this. Could we keep an issue open explaining use cases that I have, just to say that there's still an issue here

Jeremy Carroll: I'm pretty sure that sandro's use case is covered by this. I'm happy to take up an action to describe multiple versioning using this scheme

Sandro Hawke: to recast what I think Alan was wanting to do, was say: let's go ahead with something like this, but have some text in the spec or issues list that explains to people who wants something they need, that we don't provide. This can be consensus text